FREE SPEECH VERSUS FREEDOM
REASONABLE SPEECH, YES / HATE SPEECH, NO
Despite having written a piece
in favor of allowing Milo to speak in Berkeley, I retained private reservations
about my position. It is easy enough to
seek out the safest approach and try to stick to the old time-honored pledge of
freedom of speech for everybody. Still, with
the advent of yet another divisive conservative speaker ready to rile up UC
Berkeley, my doubts returned.
No one looks forward to
contradicting themselves by maintaining two opposite points of view
simultaneously and yet do that I must. I
will explain why.
There is a larger purpose to
fighting for the general right of “freedom of speech” when it has been long
denied to a large section of the general population. The Founding Fathers were right to fight for
freedom of speech: it was a progressive form of thought then, and still
is.
It was right for civil rights
activists to fight for freedom for an oppressed minority, and still is. Black people in the South were denied the
vote and subjected to every form of indignity and brutality imaginable. Thousands of Americans have fought to expand the
rights of freedom for other Americans over the years, especially women and
minorities. These were just causes
deserving of the utmost commitment and sacrifice. These
were historic struggles for justice.
The nature of the issue changes considerably,
however, when we discuss the hate-filled speech of Nazis, racists, and
fascists. These are individuals and groups
who would undermine democracy. They
would reinstate white supremacy and promote anti-Semitism to the detriment of
American democracy. These groups
practice hate-speech in a manner that would lead to a destruction of freedom of
speech if they got their way. People
have the right to protest such reactionary chauvinism and racism. We must trust ourselves to understand the
difference.
In the 1960’s, college students
at CAL were not allowed to express their political viewpoints by helping
anti-war and civil rights groups by raising money for them. That college generation began a movement for
student rights that occurred right alongside the burgeoning movements for
social change; students argued for an education that was relevant to their
lives.
These students were eager to
become agents of change for people less fortunate than themselves. Some of them donated clothing, food, and
other supplies to Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers. This personal commitment expressed a
humanitarian outlook very much in keeping with the values of a humanistic
education and the practices of a democratic nation.
In the last few years, however, an
ultra-conservative group within the Republican Party has come to dominate the
party; its political sway is growing.
Along with the GOP’s latest plunge to the Far Right, political pundits
are emerging who are deliberately engaging in provocative rhetoric aimed at
stirring up a hornet’s nest of trouble.
It thus became apparent to many
people in Berkeley (and around the country) that they are not dealing with a reasonable
group of conservatives eager for dialogue but ultra-nationalists who sound like
spokesmen for Far Right attitudes and beliefs.
We know that after World War II
ended, people asked: how could it happen?
How could the German people allow the Nazis to take power? One conclusion reached was that the people
did not become alarmed while there was still time, did not fight back with
conviction, did not take the necessary steps to stamp out fascism before the
cancer grew too large.
When a nation’s laws and
democratic institutions are at stake, the usual platitudes do not hold. Granting free speech to a madman like Hitler,
with his sadistic Brown Shirt terrorists, is not a reasonable exercise of the
doctrine of freedom of speech; rather, it opened the door to a murderous
dictator whose actions led to the deaths of millions of people.
The young people in Berkeley are
not fools. They are some of the most
intelligent college students to be found anywhere in the country. The liberal-progressive campus is allied with
many Berkeley citizens who understand all too well the difference between protecting our constitutional democracy
and opposing a rising tide of
fascism--before it is too late.
That is how the author came to
adopt two positions that appear contradictory.
Yes, free speech should be offered on the CAL campus for as wide a range
of groups as possible--provided they share a basic American instinct for kindness,
open-mindedness, and democratic equality.
No, free speech should not be
offered to racists, gender chauvinists, political reactionaries, and licentious
provocateurs hiding secret agendas behind their divisive words of hatred and contempt
for targeted scapegoats. Free speech
should not be made easy for Nazis, Skinheads, Racists, and Fascists. These reactionaries who wish to speak at
Berkeley may readily become forerunners of an iron-fisted fascism that even now
hides while waiting for its moment to come out in the open.
Let us not make the same mistake
“nice people” made in other nations when they did not react in time to the
undermining of their democratic institutions by the Far Right; they did not act
in time to prevent fascism from destroying their freedom.
Call it contradictory or what
you will, but I believe there is room for both these points of view.
Yes, listen to reasonable people
who are open-minded and willing to engage in a fair-minded exchange of opinions
with you; we can all learn from new voices.
No, that does not mean we must tolerate
the Far Right’s creeping fascism: for that, we must prepare to fight back!
Where reasonable speech is
practiced, by all means we should defend the right of people to express their views
freely.
Where unreasonable speech is the
enemy, we have an equally great obligation to challenge and oppose such right-wing
propaganda, deceit, and treachery. Denying
them a platform is part of that opposition: RESIST!
No comments:
Post a Comment